UA transfers its two DAL (Love Field) gates to Southwest; Is DL out?

Status
Not open for further replies.
and given that WN and VX are ADDING flights in order to try to force DL out, a key point will be that current operators are not required to accommodate other carriers by reducing schedules - but WN has done the complete opposite.

WN will find that it has no choice but to give up half of a gate to DL for ad infinitum.

maybe DL will support WN in expanding DAL if DAL and maybe they won't.....I'm betting they will.

in the meantime, WN's schedule will be locked at close to 180 max flights/day
 
eolesen said:
Except it's really not a contradiction. The law requires reasonable accommodation. At some point, there's no room at the inn, and the SRP recognizes both situations. DL seems to be in denial about the latter.

It's unreasonable to expect a leaseholder to be unable to use their leasehold, and I don't think you'll find a single judge at the appeals court level who would rule otherwise (at the lower levels, anything is possible).
Click to expand...
The problem is that it allows airlines like Virgin to add BS loss making flights just to be d-bags about it. 
 
except that VX isn't part of the issue; WN is.

VX doesn't have anywhere near 90% of the seats in ANY airport it serves.

That is why the DOT didn't tell VX they needed to accommodate DL; they told WN they did.
 
WorldTraveler said:
except that VX isn't part of the issue; WN is.

VX doesn't have anywhere near 90% of the seats in ANY airport it serves.

That is why the DOT didn't tell VX they needed to accommodate DL; they told WN they did.
Click to expand...
VX is part of the issue but I agree, whoever approved WN getting the United gates should be shot. 
 
but I also think that those two gates are what gives Delta ground to stand on now. It was basically impossible till that happened. 
 
WorldTraveler said:
and given that WN and VX are ADDING flights in order to try to force DL out, a key point will be that current operators are not required to accommodate other carriers by reducing schedules - but WN has done the complete opposite.

WN will find that it has no choice but to give up half of a gate to DL for ad infinitum.

maybe DL will support WN in expanding DAL if DAL and maybe they won't.....I'm betting they will.

in the meantime, WN's schedule will be locked at close to 180 max flights/day
Click to expand...
Yup....They are adding flights to push DL out....    Now thats funny
 
Hope777 said:
Yup....They are adding flights to push DL out....    Now thats funny
Click to expand...
VX adding DAL-AUS is clearly to push Delta out. 
 
It will bleed money like no ones business 
 
topDawg said:
The problem is that it allows airlines like Virgin to add BS loss making flights just to be d-bags about it.
Click to expand...
No different than the slot hoarding at LGA and DCA over the years by DL and other carriers. B6 used the same approach at LGB about 10-15 years ago when they did the backroom deal to get the city to hand over all of the outstanding slots there.

Is (or perhaps was) it really essential for DL to use precious slots at LGA to provide one or two trips a day to TYS, CHO, SDF, LEX, ROA, and OMA? How about JAX, CHS, and GSO? ILM, MSN, or CAE?

Those are all destinations that DL was flying nonstop from LGA at one point or another in the last few years. Not going to bother checking to see if they still are, but clearly, some of that is just to be d-bags about keeping slots in use vs. losing them for dormancy, and waiting for the day that the perimeter gets dropped.

I'd be willing to bet that the day the perimeter rule is dropped, DL will be in court demanding their right to use those slots for any destination, and not just the poor underserved airports that got DOT's attention with the Air 21 exemptions.
 
eolesen said:
No different than the slot hoarding at LGA and DCA over the years by DL and other carriers. B6 used the same approach at LGB about 10-15 years ago when they did the backroom deal to get the city to hand over all of the outstanding slots there.

Is (or perhaps was) it really essential for DL to use precious slots at LGA to provide one or two trips a day to TYS, CHO, SDF, LEX, ROA, and OMA? How about JAX, CHS, and GSO? ILM, MSN, or CAE?

Those are all destinations that DL was flying nonstop from LGA at one point or another in the last few years. Not going to bother checking to see if they still are, but clearly, some of that is just to be d-bags about keeping slots in use vs. losing them for dormancy, and waiting for the day that the perimeter gets dropped.

I'd be willing to bet that the day the perimeter rule is dropped, DL will be in court demanding their right to use those slots for any destination, and not just the poor underserved airports that got DOT's attention with the Air 21 exemptions.
Click to expand...
Good points. 
 
no they aren't.
they are all E's typical attempts at creating red herrings - and doing a poor job at it.

nowhere does any competitive principle in US business make it wrong to spread a company's footprint to dozens of markets with limited presence at the expense of dominating a few markets.

in fact, repeatedly the DOT has favored and blessed allowing carriers to provide new service to new cities as a primary tool of increasing network size - and it is a principle that went all the way back to the CAB.

further, most of the new flights that WN is adding in August - presumably they will add them regardless if they are required to accommodate DL or not - are single daily flights to multiple markets.

you can't argue that it is wrong for DL or US to operate single daily service from slot restricted hubs but is ok for WN to do the same thing from DAL.

the red herring is focusing on service patterns instead of the fact that WN operates a higher percentage of flights at DAL than any other carrier operates at any other large airport. that is a fact. and as much as you want to try to hide between the WA or 5 party agreement, there is nothing that exempts WN or DAL from following US antitrust laws. Gate leases do not equate to exemptions from antitrust laws including removing carriers from the market and reducing carriers to such a small size that WN has no viable competition

and, once again, those who fail to recognize that this isn't really about DL but about WN's ability to dominate DAL which is right next door to AA's largest hub and headquarters. the impact to AA will be far, far larger than it will be to DL.

AA desperately needs to get back into DAL and undoubtedly supports DL's efforts to try and keep WN in check and a little smaller than they otherwise would be.

given that E and others refused to acknowledge for years that the end of Wright restrictions would have an enormous competitive impact on AA, it is not surprising that he continues to backpedal the steps that really need to be taken to get AA back to being able to defend its largest franchise.

DL just happens to be part of the process and unlike AA, DL didn't sign away any rights to serve DAL and thus is in a position to fight.
 
Hope777 said:
Yup....They are adding flights to push DL out....    Now thats funny
Click to expand...
Yea SWA is adding flights to lose money just to push Delta out.  He's a moron and just thinks all airlines are out to get Delta.  Little does he know SWA got rid of the W/A in order to expand greatly at DAL.  At one time SWA wanted somewhere between 220-250 flights per day out of DAL, but all that was squashed when the gate cap was negotiated into the agreement.  So yea SWA is only adding flights to push Delta out, give us a break...
 
eolesen said:
No different than the slot hoarding at LGA and DCA over the years by DL and other carriers. B6 used the same approach at LGB about 10-15 years ago when they did the backroom deal to get the city to hand over all of the outstanding slots there.

Is (or perhaps was) it really essential for DL to use precious slots at LGA to provide one or two trips a day to TYS, CHO, SDF, LEX, ROA, and OMA? How about JAX, CHS, and GSO? ILM, MSN, or CAE?

Those are all destinations that DL was flying nonstop from LGA at one point or another in the last few years. Not going to bother checking to see if they still are, but clearly, some of that is just to be d-bags about keeping slots in use vs. losing them for dormancy, and waiting for the day that the perimeter gets dropped.

I'd be willing to bet that the day the perimeter rule is dropped, DL will be in court demanding their right to use those slots for any destination, and not just the poor underserved airports that got DOT's attention with the Air 21 exemptions.
Click to expand...
You mean Delta would want to change a previous agreement because the times have changed?  Oh no they can't do that.  That's what SWA wants to do at DAL Love Field at he said they can't back out of their previous agreement.  Just like Delta will want to do at LGA.  Hmmmmm.  Hypocrite I guess...
 
eolesen said:
Is (or perhaps was) it really essential for DL to use precious slots at LGA to provide one or two trips a day to TYS, CHO, SDF, LEX, ROA, and OMA? How about JAX, CHS, and GSO? ILM, MSN, or CAE?
Click to expand...
Still fly to TYS/JAX/CHS/CAE/MSN ex LGA. No ILM. Unsure of the rest w/o looking...
 
Yea SWA is adding flights to lose money just to push Delta out.  He's a moron and just thinks all airlines are out to get Delta.  Little does he know SWA got rid of the W/A in order to expand greatly at DAL.  At one time SWA wanted somewhere between 220-250 flights per day out of DAL, but all that was squashed when the gate cap was negotiated into the agreement.  So yea SWA is only adding flights to push Delta out, give us a break...
Click to expand...
 
who said that WN is or will lose money? to the contrary, I've said that WN would do swimmingly well at DAL.

problem is that DAL still has limited space and it isn't going to grow unless WN builds a coalition of interested parties that also benefit.

E is absolutely right that DFW and AA won't agree to a thing UNLESS AA gets something out of it. and given that WN's dominance of DAL is WELL BEYOND what any other carrier has at any other airport, DL and others will have no problem arguing that there is absolutely no legal basis to expand DAL unless other carriers get DISPROPORTIONATELY MORE of the expansion than WN does.

WN might get a half dozen new gates but a half dozen additional gates need to go to other carriers.  
You mean Delta would want to change a previous agreement because the times have changed?  Oh no they can't do that.  That's what SWA wants to do at DAL Love Field at he said they can't back out of their previous agreement.  Just like Delta will want to do at LGA.  Hmmmmm.  Hypocrite I guess...
Click to expand...
 
except there is no agreement that protects WN with 18 gates. that is why the DOT said that WN has to accommodate DL in order to gain the two UA gates.
 
Still fly to TYS/JAX/CHS/CAE/MSN ex LGA. No ILM. Unsure of the rest w/o looking...
Click to expand...
I'm sure you recognize the value of each of those cities rather than having 25 flights/day in 10 markets.
 
no, it's really nothing new.

it is simply regurgitating the same thing over and over and over as if that is somehow supposed to make WN's bullying stick or acceptable.

WN has no legal protection to push DL out or to operate 18 gates. The DOT has been on DL's side all along.

I hope WN feels good about spending money on two gates that 1/2 of one of them will be used to accommodate DL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top